Saturday, March 31, 2012

The resurgence of creationist bills in several states has put the spotlight back on the creation-evolution "debate". Once again, in the name of "fairness" or "open-mindedness", established science comes under attack from politicians with no scientific understanding or qualification.

But what is often ignored by analysts giving their opinion on this disturbing trend is their avoidance of the R word: religion. It is amazing to watch the mental gymanstics that some people go through to put the blame anywhere but at the doorstep of religious faith. Naming religion as a culprit is a red line in political correctness that is not to be crossed.

For example, there have been two pieces recently in the Huffington Post exploring the issue, while completely ignoring the elephant in the room. In the first one, Kenneth Miller attributes the problem to the overall issue of resistance to science and disdain for authority (which is true but misses the point), while in the second one, Michael Zimmerman claims that attempts to pollute education with creationism are political, not scientific (again true but missing the point).

How can outstanding scientists be so blissfully ignorant? Why is it that disdain for authority, as hypothesized by Miller, is not applied to the Law of Connecting Vessels? Why isn't there an organized political force, according to Michael Zimmerman, to undercut the teaching of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism? Why are is evolution always singled out? Who are Miller and Zimmerman kidding? At a time when a distinguished, peer-reviewed medical journal withdraws an original research publication on the grounds that it contradicts the Bible, why is it that no one is willing to bring up the R word? Is it going to be an open secret that while religion is not the only reason for resistance to science, it is all too often a big contributor?

Peter Beinart, former editor of The New Republic, had a bizarre op ed in the Wall Street Journal of March 29 titled "The Jewish Case for School Vouchers". His whole argument was based on religion, on using public funds to preserve the Jewish religious/cultural heritage. Below is the response I posted in the WSJ on line -----

"Beinart's argument is as full of holes as a Swiss cheese. Here are a few responses -- 1.Tax aid for Jewish schools would also mean tax aid for Muslim and fundamentalist Christian schools. 2. US voters in 26 statewide referenda have rejected vouchers or their variants by a two to one margin. The 2011 Gallup/PDK poll showed opposition to vouchers at 65% to 34%. The referenda show that Catholic and Protestant and Jewish majorities all oppose vouchers. 3. Vouchers or their variants violate at least 39 state constitutions [and, I should have added, the US First Amendment, in the opinion of most legal scholars]. 4. Vouchers would fragment our school population along religious, ideological, class, ethnic and other lines, and destroy democratic public education. 5. By isolating Jewish kids in separate, religiously homogeneous private schools, anti-Semitism would enjoy a comeback. 6. Several years ago I debated vouchers with an Orthodox Jewish lawyer before an audience if Jewish high school kids from a Jewish high school in Philadelphia. At the end of the debate 100% of the students agreed with me that vouchers were a bad idea. 7. All major Jewish organizations, except the Orthodox, are opposed to vouchers and support separation of religion and government, which protects the rights of Jews and all other religious minorities.

Friday, March 30, 2012

Earth Hour 2012 is March 31, at 8:30 pm local time. It promises to be a very secular and humanistic hour, but I notice that like Darwin Day some conservative forces feel left out . Or perhaps that they can't let this type of progressive statement go un-co-opted. So the Competitive Enterprise Institute has jumped into the hour with Let there be light: 'Human Achievement Hour'. It coincides with Earth Hour but is probably not the same set of beliefs about protecting and saving the planet, our only home, that you see in WWF plea: Dare the World to Save the Planet.

"I Will If You Will" is a simple promise and a challenge. Dare anyone (your Facebook friends, co-workers, celebrity crushes) to accept your challenge and help protect the Earth or accept the challenge of someone else.

“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.” ― Thomas Jefferson

As a follow up on yesterday's post concerning "anger" in atheists, I thought discussing this article in the Christian Post would not be without merit.

The author equates use of ridicule against groundless beliefs with bullying and claims that its use, as recommended by Dawkins, puts atheists in a bind.

It is interesting to see that the Christian Post has such a firm stance against bullying, particularly among children. Do they, for example, condemn adults who indocrinate grade-schoolers into telling their peers they would roast in hell for ever and ever if they did not love Jesus (as documented by Katherine Stewart)? Are they angry at parents suing a school district for agreeing to enforce anti-bullying rules?

I do not speak for Dawkins and I don't know in what exact situation he might or might not be agreeable to use of ridicule. Today I met an elderly gentleman who talked to me about his (own) father in the sky not forgiving him. I think the claim that you reside somewhere in the cosmos once you are dead are about as valid as making the same claim when you are under general anesthesia. But I was not going to mock him over that, and neither do I think Dawkins would recommend it.

On the other hand, if I meet someone telling me that evolution is wrong because it contradicts the bible, or global climate change cannot be happening because of what is written in Genesis, or gays should be denied justice because what they do is an "abomination", of course I will mock them. Thomas Jefferson would not shy away from that, and neither do I.

It is unfortunate if people of faith are so thin-skinned that they see any criticism coming in the form of ridicule as bullying, according to the Christian Post. Too bad children of non-fundamentalist parents and gay children have to put up with psychological abuse and physical violence, and that is just fine.

But as much as Jesus condemned the Pharisee's hypocrisy, it doesn't seem that those who profess to be his followers are above it.

The Headline in March 2012 read, “Influential Poet Adrienne Rich Dies At 82. I hadn’t stumbled on Baltimorean Adrienne but my morning was brightened from knowing her work and life as a pioneering poet (National Book Award in 1973 for the collection "Diving into the Wreck") and social critic.I wish I had hear her speak.

From the stories I learnt that Rich was widely acclaimed for multiple volumes of poetry and prose, and hers was an important voice about the oppression of women and lesbians maintained by old myths ... that perpetuate the battle between the sexes. With books like Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution, she was a key figure in the women’s movement and a fierce critic of the powerful and establishment. In that book Rich wrote:

"we need to understand the power and powerlessness embodied in motherhood in patriarchal culture."

In 1997, she famously declined to accept the government’s National Medal of Arts as a protest against the Clinton administration, writing that art "means nothing if it simply decorates the dinner table of power which holds it hostage."

Here thoughts, I think, includes Humanist values such as in On relationships"A long-lived relationship is about so many things. It is such a dense and complex process — always a process — and it's not to be summed up. It's not to be turned into some kind of vignette. If we are serious, we also have to recognize that even the longest and richest and densest relationship must end, and we see it around us. We see it in that inevitability of time's power, if you will."Her life and thought is part of a human fabric we need as part of our movement against myths that maintain an irrational culture. You can see her fusion of art and politics and hear her concern for our modern culture and its values confronting the natural world drowning out human conversation in the poem, "What Kind of Times Are These."

"Our country moving closer to its own truth and dread, its own ways of making people disappear /

I won’t tell you where the place is, the dark mesh of the woods meeting the unmarked strip of light— ghost-ridden crossroads, leafmold paradise: I know already who wants to buy it, sell it, make it disappear /

And I won’t tell you where it is, so why do I tell you anything? Because you still listen, because in times like these to have you listen at all, it’s necessary to talk about trees." Adrienne Rich

We see her truth in her thought on poetry:

A poetry of ideological commitment must enter the heart and mind, become as real as one’s body, as vital as life itself—that’s what makes it poetry.

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Speakers at the recent Reason Rally provided a bushel of views on current topics often from different perspectives and with different tones. At one end some focused on a positive, diplomatic tone making an easily palliative case for more reason in our affairs. This plays well in the mainstream media, or at least it can. Others employed a humorous-ironic approach that makes for good sound bites, but ridicule and mockery may make some religious fundamentalists more entrenched in their beliefs. Still others like, Greta Christina & new Atheist Richard Dawkins were at the more challenging end. They touch on anger and confrontation in part. These 2 contrasting soft, strategic-diplomatic versus hard-confrontational stances represent an important difference of opinion in the atheist/non-theist movement. It’s been evident on this Blog on discussion such as the God Virus, where Edd Doerr argued that we humanists need to work with a broad spectrum of people, some of whom bear assorted religious labels. From his experience a key to the long term vision of a more humanistic world is a more diplomatic approach since you will never persuade anyone to your point of view by ridiculing them or treating them with contempt. What he stresses is:

“found in these words: strategy, strategy, strategy, timing, sequence, framing, prioritizing. A bull in a china shop approach, like that of Madalyn O'Hair is what is really counterproductive.”

Matt Goldstein (Explicit Atheist), commenting on this blog, is more like the Dawkins and Christina end, which sees a need not to accept irrational beliefs. Dawkins has put it thusly: “It is not a good strategy to accept intolerance because it is widespread.” We can argue about things like intolerance without insulting
the believers. This comes across as a bit more reasoned than Rally organizer David Silverman’s loud, naked call for "zero tolerance" for anyone who disagrees with or insults atheism. His simple message is, "Stand your ground!"

It was interesting to see how the talks at the Rally (and later follow ups in the media such as Up with Chris Hayes) addressed these alternative ideas. Greta Christina, prominent atheist & LGBT issues blogger & frequent Secular Student Alliance and the Center for Inquiry speaker, takes a confrontational stance, but like Matt has some nuance. On NPR she said, “I’m not sure it is to atheists’ benefit to always present a kinder, gentler face.”

Her talk took, on what seemed a personal challenge to explain to the Public as a whole why exactly atheists seem angry and outraged at times. This was in effect an abstract from her new book Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off The Godless. Some in the media see this as a non-starter, but if they paid attention to her talk you can see that she argued smoothly and pivoted from a list of complaints to an explanation
for the deeper feelings - most non-theist’s “anger” is less about religious belief than injustice. She argued, in paraphrase, that the public misunderstands the basis of our nuanced motivation:

“We atheists aren't angry because we're selfish, or bitter, or joyless. We atheists are angry because we have compassion. We atheists are angry because we have a sense of justice. We see millions get harmed by religious culture and our hearts go out to them. We are motivated to do something about it. That’s not because there is something wrong with us, it is because there is something right with us. “

Dawkins, as always is eloquent (“Evolution is not just true, it's beautiful”), but like Hitchens feels it important if not necessary to take a strong stand and organize the troops against are real dangers that flow from some outrageous beliefs. He encourages people not just to take intellectual issue with religious teachings, and accept them innocently but to show "contempt" for it and to "ridicule" religious belief. But like Greta he deepens the ideas noting that:

“He doesn’t despise religious people. I despise what they stand for.”

By this he might mean some of the positions of interference and counter productivity that Greta lists such as fighting the teaching of evolution.

Certainly this debate and discussion will go on and there is merit in the contrasting positions. One point that I would make builds on Greta discussion on the roots of what she called atheist anger. I see it as more than an anger emotion. When some religious person uses words to an ancient book to castigate a group I have many thoughts as well as emotions. And there is a spectrum of them depending on what I think. I am disappointed of course and hope for progress over time. I may be terrified that people actually believe the things they claim to believe and the implications of this based on movements. I may be disgusted with their choices and mockery of things like evolutionary and climate science. Rather than angry I’m often just plain sad about the state of people’s epistemological affairs of perception pushing aside reality.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

In his New York Times opinion article, "Citing Chapter and Verse: Which Scripture Is the Right One?", Stanley Fish, professor of humanities and law at Florida International University, argues that all "original authorities" choices are equally parochial, equally tribal, equally partisan, equally ideological, and equally arbitrary. Stanley Fish has his own beliefs, and he views himself as one of many other equally parochial, tribal, partisan, ideological advocates. What is important, in his view, is that while we hold and advocate for our beliefs, we simultaneously recognize that all competing beliefs have equally valid foundations. He criticizes modern atheists for placing "the tenets of materialist scientific inquiry" above other equally valid authorities, such as "revelation and conversion".

He points out that any defense of empiricism is circular because "the reasons undergirding that belief [in empiricism] are not independent of it." Such circularity is necessarily true of any possible method of belief justification (what Stanley Fish calls "original authorities") that is uniquely correct and successful. If there is only one method that reliably works then the only way to justify that method is to utilize that method to justify itself. But that doesn't mean all methods of justifying belief are equally valid. There is a way to compare the methods to each other. Consider the hypothetical: What would happen if we did not rely on this method?

Let's start with abandoning the methods of religious revelation and conversion, because those were the only two other methods Stanley Fish mentioned, and rely on empiricism (what Stanley Fish refers to as "education" or "materialist scientific inquiry"). What would happen? Well, generally speaking, people who convert from one religion to another other religion, or to or from no religion, and people who cite one religion based revelation as against another revelation, or no revelation, do equally well, more or less. So, for the sake of argument, lets just say that without relying on revelation and conversion people can, and do, proceed with living their lives as modern atheists (or, if you prefer, as "scientists") without major negative or positive impact.

Now let's try abandoning empiricism. Without empiricism we ignore our senses of smell, touch, hearing, and sight. We can stay perfectly still and within about one week we starve to death for lack of water sitting or lying in our urine and feces. Or maybe we move around, cut ourselves, break our bones smashing ourselves into things, burn ourselves, bleed to death, get run over by a car, walk over a cliff. The details don't matter, there are lots of possibilities, most of them leading to death within a few days.

Of course, outcomes are evidence, and we learn of these outcomes through the "original authority" that Stanley Fish refers to as "education", not from "revelation and conversion". So pointing to outcomes is an empirical way of defending empiricism. Stanley Fish thinks that makes the justification for empiricism circular, and he is right. But he is foolish, not just wrong, to claim that therefore empiricism is no better than any other authority for justifying beliefs. It is foolish because outcomes matter. The only method that reliably works is empiricism. Unlike all other ineffective methods, our lives literally depend on this one method, no one can survive as an independent person without many beliefs that are empirically justified. Everyone, even dependent young children, even dependent adults in adult care institutions, relies on empiricism to navigate our world.

There is no other method of belief justification that has any record of success whatsoever for distinguishing what is true from what is false. The reason that people who rely on revelation and conversion survive at all is that they are inconsistent. Religious people invariably rely on empiricism when they face important decisions that risk their health and welfare, such as whether to walk on water. These same religious people then arbitrarily rely on revelation and conversion when they make decisions that are relatively unimportant, such as whether to spend some time each weekend in a house of worship. Many religious people don't seem to recognize how inconsistent they are and fail to acknowledge the complete failure of revelation and conversion as methods for distinguishing what is true from what is false. Those religious people who really do follow revelation and conversion over education when making health decisions, also known as faith healing, such as Christian Scientists, sacrifice their, and their children's, health and welfare as a result.

At least one professor of humanities and law, maybe thinking he is being sophisticated by being non-judgmental, tragically appears to be unwilling to publicly acknowledge this substantial and important difference. Stanley Fish himself probably relies on medical doctors, not on faith healers, when it really matters to maintain his health, even though the medical knowledge database is obtained indirectly through second hand education that requires some trust in the sources of that information. He argues that because empirical evidence is often obtained second-hand, it is is no better than any other method. But almost all group activities require trust, such as the market economic system and democracy. It doesn't follow that a mixed market and command economic system and republican democracy are no better than North Korea's strictly command economic and political model. It is by inter-person and inter-generational sharing of empirically obtained knowledge that we continuously build up our knowledge base for better outcomes in the future than we had in the past. Yet according to Stanley Fish's relativistic argument, anyone with real and serious injuries who seeks assistance from faith healers instead of medical doctors has acted on equally valid evidence, and for equally good reason, as everyone who opts for medical doctors. The post-modern relativism that Stanley Fish is peddling is foolish nonsense on stilts.

Monday, March 26, 2012

There’s now considerable coverage of the Reason Rally. An example is USA Today's Richard Dawkins titled article with his quotes, as well as a random sampling of what some other prominent speakers such as:

Friendly atheist blogger Hemant Mehta urged people to run for office, any post from school board to Congress to dogcatcher.

Greta Christina, author of Why Are You Atheists So Angry?, attacked every major faith, even the teachings of the Dalai Lama. In a long litany of what makes her angry, she got all the way back to Galileo (overlooking the modern Catholic Church's restoration of his reputation).

Adam Savage, co-host of Mythbusters on the Discovery Channel, said there really is someone who loves and protects him and watches over his actions -- "It's me!"

Leal(JoyfulGypsy) used the CNN ireport for some commentary on excellent the mix of rhetoric from professional performers - singer/comedian Tim Minchin (rapping Storm), comedian Eddie Izzard, Mythbusters star Adam Savage & reasoned speeches from Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Laurence Krauss and James Randi. She made the point that Reason Rally's success will be measured by the head count or the media immediate media coverage. Rather its success will be better judged by, “how well it starts what will be a long journey to a more secular future.”

With that in mind Secular Perspectives would welcome attendees and interested parties thoughts on this, starting with a sharing of stories and thoughts from the day and follow up. Many people, such as on Twitter, have remarked about the emotional high and being " beyond thrilled". Participants reported a wonderful sense of having a real community and the joy of being together with kind, thoughtful and kindred spirits. A feast of eager-to-discuss-reasonably people. As a coming out event for some it was perhaps an ending of a splendid isolation to a more splendid community in which one can honorably belong and identify with.

I think that collecting some of these thoughts and stories in one place like Secular Perspectives will help keep the moment, break down more solitary walls and move forward on our journey towards a more enlightened and humanistic society. So please add your thoughts, haiku, photos, stories, life session, quotes etc. to the site, either as commentary to this blog or a new blog if you wish.

"I have children. I want to raise them in a world they can add value
to, that has value for them. I want for them to feel entitled only to
working hard at doing what they love, in order to be excellent at it,
and to share their lives and the rewards with those that they love. "

Sunday, March 25, 2012

by Gary Berg-Cross
Sunday morning had a great media follow up to the Reason Rally. The Up With Chris Hayes show on MSNC had a fabulous panel of Susan Jacoby, Steven Pinker, (Cognitive Psychologist), Jamila Bey (Evangelical Atheist from WAPO), Progressive voice on Citizen RadioJamie Kilstein and Robert Wright (Evolution of God). "An unprecedented look at atheism in America."

They discussed the place of atheism in their life, the history of religious freedom in the US, war, the atheism and morals of Ayn Rand, the Political Right, Libertarianism and how political-religion coalitions and how they influence each other.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Pope Benedict XVI arrived for a visit to Mexico on 3/23. He is visiting a country, the NY Times reported on 3/24, "wounded by years of drug-related violence and a church whose priests have been both complicit with and victimized by drug cartels. . . . Catholics and critics of the church are demanding that the pope address . . . a sexual scandal involving a powerful religious order favored by the Vatican for years. That scandal, centered in a group called the Legionaries of Christ and its founder, the Rev Marcial Maciel Degollado, has remained a open wound. The accusations that Father Maciel was a drug addict who abused teenage seminarians and fathered several children re-emerged this week with a new book by a former Legion priest, which cites internal Vatican documents supposedly showing the Holy See knew decades ago about the allegations against Father Macial, who died in 2008." Benedict removed Macial from duty in 2006, but "critics and former victims say that . . . he knew about Father Macial, from testimony of other priests, since at least 1998 . . ."

The Times also mentioned the rough time the church in Mexico had in the 1920s, but neglected to note that the Mexican Revolution that began in 1910 was in part a revolt against the church, which at that time owned about a third of all the land in the country.

I remember getting a Mexican freethought tabloid many years ago called "La voz de Juarez" ("The Voice of Juarez"). Benito Juarez was the liberal Mexican president around the time of the US Civil War who separated church and state in that country.

Philip Kitcher, John Dewey professor of philosophy at Columbia University, in his recent New York Times article titled "Science is Unbelieving", identifies "scientism" as a major flaw in modern atheism. He defines scientism as "this conviction that science can resolve all questions known" including "questions about morality, purpose, and consciousness" and places this label, which he acknowledges is intended to be pejorative, on Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

He then elaborates that scientism "rests on three principal ideas. The facts of microphysics determine everything under the sun (beyond it, too); Darwinian natural selection explains human behavior; and brilliant work in the still-young brain sciences shows us as we really are." However, none of these three assertions, neither individually nor in combination, imply that science can resolve all questions known. Everyone with any common sense, including modern atheists, recognizes that science is a human endeavor, that humans are limited to operating within the confines and limits of their location and time and abilities, and that humans never have, and never will, have access to all evidence about everything, everywhere, over all time, past and future. Accordingly, science does not, and will not, resolve all questions known. Indeed, all questions do not have answers because many questions have no relevance to what is true or false or are incoherent. The issue of what questions should be asked is itself an issue that can only be reliably resolved by following the available evidence.

And when we follow the evidence, as all rational people are obliged to do, the assertions that physics is “the whole truth about reality”, that we should achieve “a thoroughly Darwinian understanding of humans”, and that neuroscience makes the abandonment of illusions “inescapable", are not scientism, as Philip Kitcher asserts, they are simply the conclusions that arguably are most consistent with the available evidence. Those are short quotes that Philip Kitcher excerpted from a book by one particular atheist ("The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions" by Alex Rosenberg). He is using his critical review of that book as his launching pad for his more general attack against modern atheism. I have not read that book, but taking short phrases like that out of context is not conducive to fair criticism of the author's argument. I can imagine such short phrases appearing in paragraphs whose context gives them a more nuanced interpretation than Philip Kitcher appears to be trying to attribute to this author. Philip Kitcher clearly dislikes these sorts of conclusions, but his mislabeling these conclusions as scientism fails to demonstrated that they are "premature".

It is true that "very little physics and chemistry can actually be done with its fundamental concepts and methods, and using it to explain life, human behavior or human society is a greater challenge still. Many informed scholars doubt the possibility, even in principle, of understanding, say, economic transactions as complex interactions of subatomic particles.". But again, science is a human activity, and humans are limited in many ways. So none of these limitations in science as a human activity counter the conclusion that physics underlies the whole truth about reality. Quantum indeterminacy, the necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, is one of the characteristics of the universe as understood by modern physics. So even if some predictions are impossible "in principle", it still doesn't follow that it is mistaken to conclude that physics underlies the whole truth about reality. What Philip Kitcher derides as "imperial physics" makes complete access to the future forever inaccessible to us. Furthermore, nothing in basic physics requires that the properties of complex systems be identical to the collection of the properties of that system's constituent parts. It is well established in physics that entirely new properties sometimes appear in complex systems. Nothing about this emergent properties phenomena supports the conclusion that god exists. Philip Kitcher may not like that physics rules over us and the universe, but that doesn't make the evidence that it does any less convincing.

Philip Kitcher then disparages the generalizing from evidence to conclusions "unfettered by methodological cautions that students of human evolution have learned". Indeed, atheism is a generalization, not a conclusion of science. Generalizing from the evidence is something we all do. It is a basis for sound philosophy, so it seems kind of odd to hear a philosopher criticize such activity in such general terms. We need to make decisions on the basis of the available evidence, and since the available evidence often falls short of being complete in the context of answering the questions relevant to making our decisions, we generalize on the evidence. Shame on atheists for being like everyone else in this regard!?

Philip Kitcher then points out that "others hold the equally staunch position that some questions are so profound that they must forever lie beyond the scope of natural science. Faith in God, or a conviction that free will exists, or that life has meaning are not subject to revision in the light of empirical evidence." The first two questions are existence questions and the only reliable basis for answering such questions is by matching the answer against the available evidence, not on faith or conviction. The evidence disfavors both, and the people who argue that empirical evidence can have no relevance when trying to answer those questions are no less mistaken for being adamant. The last question is an attitude question. But even human attitudes, to be properly sustained, need to be anchored in facts and therefore should be built on a foundation of evidence, not on counter-evidenced possibilities such as God and free will. And what in the world does the measure of profundity have to do with a question being beyond the scope of natural science? Profundity is irrelevant here. Questions are either inside or outside the scope of natural science primarily in relation to the availability of evidence.

Not surprisingly, Philip Kitcher tries to divorce his attack against "scientism" from disrespect for natural science. He notes that "The natural sciences command admiration through the striking successes ....". But "... the natural sciences have no monopoly on inferential rigor. Linguists and religious scholars make connections among languages and among sacred texts, employing the same methods of inference evolutionary biologists use to reconstruct life’s history. Attending to achievements like these offers many alternatives to scientism." With that last sentence, Philip Kitcher appears to be implying that modern atheism (a.k.a "scientism") is inconsistent with "employing the same methods of inference evolutionary biologists use to reconstruct life’s history" in contexts beyond the natural sciences. This is nonsense. Modern atheists very much support and favor "employing the same methods of inference" on the empirical evidence beyond the confines of the natural sciences. Inferring from the evidence is what we are doing when we observe that the available evidences favor the conclusion that gods are human created fictions.

Philip Kitcher then asserts "Instead of forcing the present-day natural sciences to supply All the Answers, you might value other forms of investigation — at least until physics, biology and neuroscience have advanced." But that is what atheists are doing. Atheists look to psychology, to anthropology, to sociology, to history, to evidence grounded philosophy, etc., and the evidences available from all sources that relates to this particular question is consistent in its direction wherever we look. That is why we are atheists. This has nothing to do with natural sciences supplying "All the Answers", it is about the best fit with the overall evidence answer to a particular question. There are human tendencies that explain the common bias against accepting the evidences that our universe is all space-time and matter-energy, such as the tendency to internalize the beliefs of the people around us during childhood. Maybe in the future we will have evidence that our universe consists of something more than space-time and matter-energy, or maybe not, but it is a mistake to insist that there is also a god without the evidence.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Journalist Janet Heimlich's book is one of the most powerful and important to appear in the last year. Maltreatment or abuse of children is usually thought of in four separate, but related, categories: physical, psychological/emotional, sexual, and medical neglect (as in dependance on faith-healing). And while these forms of abuse can occur in any social setting, Heimlich shows that they tend to be concentrated in religious authoritarian or fundamentalist culture, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Fundamentalist LDS, or other. I might note that while Heimlich discusses the problem of sexual abuse by priests, she does not adequately portray the worldwide extent of the scandal or the top-down cover-ups at the highest levels.

Among Heimlich's prescriptions for reducing the abuse are these: repealing faith-healing-related legal religious exemptions, requiring clergy to report child abuse and neglect, extending or eliminating sexual abuse statutes of limitations, and having secular agencies reach out to religious communities.

Breaking Their Will and Katherine Stewart's The Good News Club (which I mentioned on this blog recently and which I review at length in the April/May Free Inquiry) should set off all the alarm bells at the increasing penetration of hard core religious fundamentalism into our public schools and politics.

Reason Rally on the Mall is a milestone event for the growing atheist movement

On Saturday, March 24, 2012, the National Mall in Washington will play host to what is expected to be the largest gathering of atheists in history. Dubbed Reason Rally, it will be attended by thousands of atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers, and non-believers of every stripe. It’s being called Secular Woodstock. Music will be provided by the band Bad Religion.

But, the rally will be more than a soggy mosh for the religiously unpersuaded. Reason Rally will show that all the cool people are atheists now and that the days of consent by silence are over. It’s an appeal to millions of hidden atheists to come out of their closets and join the fun.

Not to overstate the case, but Reason Rally has been 2,000 years in the making. For most of the last 20 centuries, atheism was highly lethal. There were always plenty of non-believers, but Darwinism actively selected against the outspoken. Religious dissent was brutally discouraged and driven underground. The scope of non-belief is only now becoming apparent.

A large public gathering of atheists is a relatively new thing in the world, enabled by two pivotal events in human history: the U.S. Constitution and the invention of the Internet. The Constitution guarantees that the rights of the irreligious are exactly equal to the rights of the aggressively pious. The Internet had Christians and Atheists arguing over evolution in ALL CAPS by the end of the first day

The Constitution gave us the rights but the Internet gave us the voice. After two millennia, atheists had a way to find each other and to demonstrate that we are not the hell-bound, baby-eating monsters that the preachers warned you about. It turns out that we are everywhere and we are here to stay. We are your friends, family, neighbors, plumbers, politicians, and your IT guy. We are patriotic Americans who love our country and do not, as is often suggested, have to move to Russia.

Instead, we are just going to have a big party on the National Mall.

To put it in perspective, the rally is not likely to rival the sea of people at Obama’s inauguration. But, it’s not the numbers that make Reason Rally an important event. It is the spectacle of thousands of deity-free Americans, on the Mall, carrying smart, funny signs and listening to the notorious evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, explain why reality is important.

According to the most recent American Religious Identification Survey, over 75 million Americans are not Christians. Over 50 million of those have no religious affiliation and profess little or no belief in a supreme deity. These are the “Nones” and their numbers have doubled since 1991. The few thousand godless Americans you will see on the Mall are just the tip of a large iceberg - with a Darwin fish on the side.

Reason Rally will give a heads up to those who have been reluctant to recognize the mushrooming numbers and the growing political presence of secular Americans. There are millions of us, with legitimate concerns about government endorsement of religiosity. Likewomen and birth control, we deserve a seat at the table when the adamantly religious are deciding our fate.

Reason Rally is happening because it’s time for Secular Americans to be seen and heard, to defend science, and separation of church and state. We’ll be on the Mall because it’s time to push back against the creeping theocratization of America.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

The Reason Rally, slated to be the largest non-theist/secular event in world history, arrives in Washington, D.C. on Saturday March 24. It promises to be a memorable gathering as secular activists come together in the national capital to celebrate and express secular identity. The rally is sponsored by many of the US’s top secular organizations & will feature music, comedy, and addresses by leaders of the secular movement. Scheduled to appear are author Dr. Richard Dawkins, actor and comedian Eddie Izzard, writer and comedian Bill Maher, comedian Tim Minchin, the Bad Religion band and many more. The event is intended to give the secular community an opportunity to unite under the Enlightenment banner of reason. It's worth coming out for.

It’s generated some discussion and we’ll probably see some media coverage that will be interesting. The Young Turks has been proud to announce they have sent reps to cover it.

Of course there have already been some grumblings on why we need a rally for reason. David Silverman provided a nice response in Why we need a Reason Rally noting, among other things, that while it is “a non-partisan event with attendees from all along the political spectrum, it is a statement to Washington, to our elected leaders, and to the rest of the nation that nonbelievers are a legitimate political segment of the American population.”

And of course it is important because:

America is one of the most religious countries in the world. And if you are non-religious, it can seem that without religion you cannot be elected to public office, cannot be considered a moral or ethical person, or be considered a patriot. It does not appear to matter what religious beliefs you cling to so long as you can tell anyone who asks, “Yes, sir or ma’am, I believe in God.”Apparently, some fundamentalist Christians are planning on coming to the rally too. They are currently offering a special online seminar to their members on how to evangelize to atheists at the Reason Rally. Expect some proselytizing to compete with the reason in the air. The Christian group that calls themselves “True Reason” plans some type of party crash, but they say they will bring peace and love. With that they have announced that they will be giving out their book and flyers advertising their e-book at the Rally. I hope they take some of our flyers too. What do you think?

"Republican Daniel Bongino has little chance of beating Democrat Ben Cardin in Maryland's US Senate race, especially with his support for the diversion of public funds to sectarian private schools through a voucher scheme.

"Last year's Gallup poll on education showed opposition to vouchers at 65% to 34%, almost exactly the average percentage by which vouchers or their variants have been voted down in 26 statewide referenda from coast to coast, including two here in Maryland.

As a writer and editor (books, articles, poetry, fiction, 40+ years of columns in Humanist journals) for 60+ years, I have also published several thousand letters to the editor in newspapers and magazines across the US, plus in recent years several thousand blog comments. The point I wish to make is that especially in this crucial election year, all Humanists need to get into the game. It is not rocket science. All it takes is will and effort. Try it. You'll like it. Start out with newspaper blogs and then try your hand at letters to the editor. I would be happy to provide examples. (Edd Doerr, Box 6656, Silver Spring, Md 20916)

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

March has snuck up on me.I didn’t know that it was World Water Day March 22nd until it was upon me.Lots of events in DC around the same week. The DC Water For People group helps people in developing countries improve quality of life by supporting the development of locally sustainable drinking water resources, sanitation facilities, and hygiene education programs organized. They have a new video here and an info page too!

Which brings me to DC's annual 20th Environmental Film Festival (EFF). It is just one of several film festivals we have that make the area a real film going pleasure.The 26th Annual Filmfest DC isApril 12 – 22 and Silverdocs is June 18-24. Many of them offer secular and humanistic gems that advance public understanding of things like the environment through the power of film. And they often are shown in culturally interesting venues such as the National Geographic Society, the Carnegie Institution for Science, National Building Museum, various universities and embassies.There’s something for everyone with topics on water, sustainability, architecture, nature. I’d love to see Happy, IN ORGANIC WE TRUST or BIOPHILIC DESIGN: THE ARCHITECTURE OF LIFE shown as part of the multi-day, multi-venue Health and the Environment Film Series. The summary for BIOPHILIC is catching:

Embark on a journey from our evolutionary past and the origins of architecture to the world’s most celebrated buildings in a search for the architecture of life. The film showcases buildings that connect people and nature...

Capturing the extraordinary things animals and plants must do to survive and reproduce, this film documents the actions of an array of creatures. Witness amazing behavior, captured at 1,000 frames per second...

And its being shown with BROKEN TAIL: A TIGER'S LAST JOURNEY, ELSA: THE LIONESS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD, HELGOLAND: ISLAND IN THE STORM and MY LIFE AS A TURKEY

Too many good things to catch them all.That’s one reason I was excited to see that SnagFilms is presenting select documentary films from the festival online. Bravo.

Monday, March 19, 2012

"Invasion of the Soul Snatchers" was the title I used three decades ago for articles in The Humanist and the Americans for Religious Liberty journal Voice of Reason. My subject was the incursion into our public schools of evangelical religious operations bent on proselytizing students. The next issue of Free Inquiry (April/May) will have my review, with the same title, of Katherine Stewart's book The Good News Club: The Christian Right's Stealth Assault on America's Chilldren (Prometheus Books, Public Affairs Press, 2012, 291 pp, $25.99).

Stewart's book may well be one of the most important published this year. Since my articles were published nearly 30 years ago the problem has metastisized, largely under the radar, into something truly frightening.

Stewart's book is must reading not only for Humanists but for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are not evangelical fundamentalists. Read my review in the upcoming Free Inquiry.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

One of the reasons many people shy away from atheism is the conviction that a creator God is a reasonable explanation, and the only viable explanation, for how the universe came to exist. The commonly held assumption is that nothingness was the initial condition sometime prior to the Big Bang and that nothingness is a condition from which something cannot appear. This perspective underpins deism, although many agnostics and theists also share this perspective and see this need for something to originate from nothing as being the Achilles Heel of atheism. The new book, "A universe from nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing", by Lawrence M. Krauss, disputes this assumption. I will discuss that book in a future blog post. For now, let's take a quick look at another cosmologist's overlapping commentary on this topic.

Sean Carrol of the California Institute of Technology, in his article "Does the Universe Need God?", says this: "Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self- contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement." Furthermore, citing Hawking, he notes that "nothing in the fact that there is a first moment of time ... necessitates that an external something is required to bring the universe about at that moment." Indeed, "the issue of whether or not there actually is a beginning to time remains open." Instead, the Big Bang may be a "transitional stage in an eternal universe." He also explains that "the multi-verse is not a theory, it is a prediction of a theory", based on combining string theory with inflation. Furthermore, contrary to what theistic critics sometimes assert, a multi-verse complies with the preference for simple explanations because "the simplicity of a theory is a statement about how compactly we can describe the formal structure ..., not how many elements it contains."

Sean Carrol points out that a compelling argument for God "would consist of a demonstration that God provides a better explanation (for whatever reason) than a purely materialistic picture, not an a priori insistence that a purely materialistic picture is unsatisfying." Furthermore, "to refer to this or that event as having some particular cause .... Is just shorthand for what's really going on, namely: things are obeying the laws of physics." Accordingly, "there is no reason ... to think of the existence and persistence and regularity of the universe as things that require external explanation." Furthermore, with theism "we're not simply adding a new element to an existing ontology (like a new field or particle), or even replacing one ontology with a more effective one at a similar level of complexity .... We're adding an entirely new metaphysical category, whose relation to the observable world is unclear." Sean Carrol then notes the discrepancies between the universe we should expect if traditional theisms were true and the universe as it is. God "isn't needed to keep things moving, or to develop the complexity of living creatures, or to account for the existence of the universe." At 14 pages, his article is worth the time investment required to read.

Subscribe To Blog

Thoughts on contemporary society by secular humanists, atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, brights and others. WASH is very supportive of the various Coalition of Reason efforts in our area and elsewhere and authors will be broadly included from friends and member organizations.

Prospective posts to Secular Perspectives can be emailed to blog@wash.org. Please include first and last name and the locality within which you reside. Requests for anonymity will be respected if there is cogent reason to protect a person's identity. We fully understand that anti-secular bigotry can be significant in many regions and many particular professions.

Secular Perspective Posts and Comments are Viewpoints of Those Posting

The views shared on the Secular Perspectives blog are not endorsed by the Washington Area Secular Humanists or any officers of WASH. WASH provides this forum as a channel of communication for the secular community but takes no responsibility for the viewpoints expressed by bloggers or those who leave comments.